Do you understand those on the other side?

[Jose Fly]

As I've pointed out many times (probably too many times), I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian environment. I was taught young-earth creationism from an early age, was told prayer and reading the Bible were the answer to most of life's problems and questions, and witnessed all sorts of "interesting" things such as speaking in tongues, faith healing, end times predictions, etc.

Yet despite being completely immersed in this culture, I can't recall a time in my life when I ever believed any of it. However, unlike some of my peers at the time I didn't really find it boring. In fact, I found a lot of it to be rather fascinating because.....very little of it made any sense to me. I just could not understand the people, their beliefs, their way of thinking, or much of anything that I saw and heard. When I saw them anointing with oil someone who had the flu and later saw the virus spread (of course), I could not understand what they were thinking. When I saw them make all sorts of failed predictions about the Soviet Union and the end times, yet never even acknowledge their errors while continuing to make more predictions, I was baffled. Speaking in tongues was of particular interest to me because it really made no sense to me.

In the years that I've been debating creationists it's the same thing. When I see them say "no transitional fossils" or "no new genetic information" only to ignore examples of those things when they're presented, I can't relate to that way of thinking at all. When I see them demand evidence for things only to ignore it after it's provided, I can't relate. When I see them quote mine a scientific paper and after someone points it out they completely ignore it, I can't relate.

Now to be clear, I think I "understand" some of what's behind these behaviors (i.e., the psychological factors), but what I don't understand is how the people engaging in them seem to be completely oblivious to it all. What goes on in their mind when they demand "show me the evidence", ignore everything that's provided in response, and then come back later and make the same demand all over again? Are they so blinded by the need to maintain their beliefs that they literally block out all memories of it? Again....I just don't get it.

So the point of discussion for this thread is....how about you? For the "evolutionists", can you relate to the creationists' way of thinking and behaviors? For the creationists, are there behaviors from the other side that baffle you, and you just don't understand? Do you look at folks like me and think to yourselves, "I just cannot relate to his way of thinking?"

Or is it just me?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Irreducible complexity is from Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box.

Correct.

Guess what, both Behe and Dembski are advocates of intelligent design.

Finding Darwin's God does an excellent job of that.

Anyone can write a book..

That's Paley's watchmaker again.

Nature doesn't make watches...and every cell in your body is more complex than a watch.

Call it what you want.

The "taxicab fallacy" is the apologetic claim that opponents are switching worldviews ("like switching taxicabs"), usually involving something like morality ("Your worldview has no source of absolute morality, but you're arguing for absolute morality!"). Even then, it's not really a fallacy, but I'm not guilty of it in any case. The "taxicab" that you're claiming that I switched from, that complexity alone is a hallmark of design, is your argument, not mine. I was never in that "taxicab" in the first place.

More accurate definition..

"The “Taxi-Cab Fallacy” is committed when one hops in and assumes a certain system of thought or worldview in an attempt to make a particular point but then jumps out of the system of thought when it suits their fancy."

[Clownboat]

But you're the evolutionist, why can't you accept that creationists evolved then? what is so hard to understand here?

Perhaps this is what causes the lack of understanding from the other side.
Creationists cannot seem to understand that when discussing evolution, those that are not creationists don't have a dog in the fight. Ain't my pig, ain't my farm as the saying goes. To prove evolution wrong, we lose nothing. No heaven, eternal bliss or seeing of loved ones for eternity. This is your burden to bare and renders comments like, "you're the evolutionist" fairly meaningless.

Creationism has emotional ties. Evolution doesn't and it would be good for those on the other side to understand this as I understand their 'need' to believe in a created world.

Show the world was created, I lose nothing.
Show evolution to be true, and you have much to risk.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #241]

Mindless, blind, and random processes don't give you that.

Since evolution isn't random, it does not fall into this category of process. So it would be very much in the running for "giving you that."

Evolution is purportedly a consequence of (among other things) random genetic mutation and random transcription errors.

[Inquirer]

Whether specified complexity or irreducible complexity...take your pick.

Either way, the point was made...as both are concepts coined by Dembski.

Irreducible complexity is from Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box.

If there is an argument made against it, I haven't heard it yet.

Ken Miller's book Finding Darwin's God does an excellent job of that.

A single living cell is more complex than a space-shuttle. So if an intelligent designer(s) are needed to create a space shuttle, then an intelligent designer is needed to create life.

That's Paley's watchmaker again.

And to accept one and not the other is to commit the taxicab fallacy...

The "taxicab fallacy" is the apologetic claim that opponents are switching worldviews ("like switching taxicabs"), usually involving something like morality ("Your worldview has no source of absolute morality, but you're arguing for absolute morality!"). Even then, it's not really a fallacy, but I'm not guilty of it in any case. The "taxicab" that you're claiming that I switched from, that complexity alone is a hallmark of design, is your argument, not mine. I was never in that "taxicab" in the first place.

No physical system can attain states that are not already potentially attainable. What accounts for the presence of a material universe that has the capacity to elicit living organisms?

Denying that life was designed and claiming it arises "naturally" in the universe is a fallacious line of reasoning because the capacity, the potential for generating life must already have been present yet is unaccounted for by materialist philosophy.

No matter how you look at it there is no scope for explaining anything at all with science, the best we can do is reductionism, we can reduce this or that phenomenon to an aggregate effect of constituent causes but those causes must then themselves be reduced, ad infinitum.

A happens because of M,N and P. M happens because of L,T and J T happens because of X,Y and Z...forever, never ending, only God resolves the paradox, some of course refuse to accept this and so continue to wander around in the dark.

The problem with modern pop science is that it fails to recognize its own limitations.

[Inquirer]

But you're the evolutionist, why can't you accept that creationists evolved then? what is so hard to understand here?

Perhaps this is what causes the lack of understanding from the other side.
Creationists cannot seem to understand that when discussing evolution, those that are not creationists don't have a dog in the fight. Ain't my pig, ain't my farm as the saying goes. To prove evolution wrong, we lose nothing. No heaven, eternal bliss or seeing of loved ones for eternity. This is your burden to bare and renders comments like, "you're the evolutionist" fairly meaningless.

Creationism has emotional ties. Evolution doesn't and it would be good for those on the other side to understand this as I understand their 'need' to believe in a created world.

Show the world was created, I lose nothing.
Show evolution to be true, and you have much to risk.

Except I began to question claims about the fossil record over forty years ago, only years later did I even begin to contemplate God as a potential factor in physical reality.

If you think I was a "religious" person who rejected evolution because it conflicted with my theology you'd be emphatically wrong.

I was a scientifically competent educated person with no interest whatsoever in "God" or Bibles or religion or any of that, no interest, I regarded it as claptrap, it was irrelevant to me.

The shocking absence of fossil evidence for continuity came first, only much later did I begin to reconsider my position on creation, only then did I begin to realize that I'd been lying to myself as many here are doing unwittingly.

Creationism is entirely logical, a logical means of accounting for systems that cannot account for themselves.

In science the only thing you can use to construct an explanation for the universe is the universe, if you can't see the sheer absurdity and futility of that belief then I can't do much for you.

Be mindful too of how you speak of creationists, Barbarian is a creationist remember?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #241]

Mindless, blind, and random processes don't give you that.

Since evolution isn't random, it does not fall into this category of process. So it would be very much in the running for "giving you that."

Evolution is purportedly a consequence of (among other things) random genetic mutation and random transcription errors.

Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment.

You would correct this thinking of yours if not for having a need to maintain your religious beliefs. The rest of us understand that it is not a random mechanism as we are not saddled with the religous need to reject the mechanism of evolution as you are. I am open to a better mechanism if one can be proposed as I lose nothing if evolution is shown to not be the best explination. You however have a dog in the fight and have sympathy for you due to what you are forced to accept or reject.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #241]

Mindless, blind, and random processes don't give you that.

Since evolution isn't random, it does not fall into this category of process. So it would be very much in the running for "giving you that."

Evolution is purportedly a consequence of (among other things) random genetic mutation and random transcription errors.

Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment.

You would correct this thinking of yours if not for having a need to maintain your religious beliefs. The rest of us understand that it is not a random mechanism as we are not saddled with the religious need to reject the mechanism of evolution as you are. I am open to a better mechanism if one can be proposed as I lose nothing if evolution is shown to not be the best explination. You however have a dog in the fight and have sympathy for you due to what you are forced to accept or reject.

The outcome of any process (including natural selection) must be random if the inputs to it are random. This is elementary logic, yet as is often the case the evolution devotee disregards logic, they have their own brand of pseudo logic where they can make any claim they like and expect others to accept it as fact.

This is what happens when scientism dips its toe into philosophy, absurdities and contradictions run amok !

[Clownboat]

But you're the evolutionist, why can't you accept that creationists evolved then? what is so hard to understand here?

Perhaps this is what causes the lack of understanding from the other side.
Creationists cannot seem to understand that when discussing evolution, those that are not creationists don't have a dog in the fight. Ain't my pig, ain't my farm as the saying goes. To prove evolution wrong, we lose nothing. No heaven, eternal bliss or seeing of loved ones for eternity. This is your burden to bare and renders comments like, "you're the evolutionist" fairly meaningless.

Creationism has emotional ties. Evolution doesn't and it would be good for those on the other side to understand this as I understand their 'need' to believe in a created world.

Show the world was created, I lose nothing.
Show evolution to be true, and you have much to risk.

Except I began to question claims about the fossil record over forty years ago, only years later did I even begin to contemplate God as a potential factor in physical reality.

If you think I was "religious" person who rejected evolution because it conflicted with my theology you'd be emphatically wrong.

I was a scientifically competent educated person with no interest whatsoever in "God" or Bibles or religion or any of that, no interest, I regarded it as claptrap, it was irrelevant to me.

The shocking absence of fossil evidence for continuity came first, only much later did I begin to reconsider my position on creation, only then did I begin to realize that I'd been lying to myself as many here are doing unwittingly.

Creationism is entirely logical, a logical means of accounting for systems that cannot account for themselves.

It seems the point went over your head.

"Creationists cannot seem to understand that when discussing evolution, those that are not creationists don't have a dog in the fight. Ain't my pig, ain't my farm as the saying goes. To prove evolution wrong, we lose nothing. No heaven, eternal bliss or seeing of loved ones for eternity. This is your burden to bare and renders comments like, "you're the evolutionist" fairly meaningless."

How can you not see that this fact alone would make it very hard for a creationist to understand the other side? They think (exceptions of course) that someone that accepts evolution as the best explination is tied to evolution like the religious are to their religious beliefs. There is no heaven, bliss or seeing of loved ones to lose if we are shown a better explination for how we got the life we see now and also in the fossil record. The same is not true for the religious, which makes understanding the non religious difficult.

Religions provide motivation to reject evolution.
The non religious are not motivated to accept evolution and lose nothing if a better mechanism is shown.

I get it, this is hard to understand: "It super important to me, so it must be to you, but it really isn't." Thus making understanding the other side difficult.

[Jose Fly]

The outcome of any process (including natural selection) must be random if the inputs to it are random. This is elementary logic, yet as is often the case the evolution devotee disregards logic, they have their own brand of pseudo logic where they can make any claim they like and expect others to accept it as fact.

Oh good grief. This, coming from a guy who also didn't know bacteria are a Domain and tries to (childishly) ridicule others for not understanding evolution.

I have a black bag with colored discs in it. I reach into the bag and pull out discs one at a time. The color of disc I pull out is random. Each time I pull one out, if it is red I keep it and if it's any other color I put it back in the bag. After 15 minutes I have all red discs.

How can that be if the color of discs I pulled out is random?

Sheesh....creationists...

[Clownboat]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #241]

Mindless, blind, and random processes don't give you that.

Since evolution isn't random, it does not fall into this category of process. So it would be very much in the running for "giving you that."

Evolution is purportedly a consequence of (among other things) random genetic mutation and random transcription errors.

Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment.

You would correct this thinking of yours if not for having a need to maintain your religious beliefs. The rest of us understand that it is not a random mechanism as we are not saddled with the religious need to reject the mechanism of evolution as you are. I am open to a better mechanism if one can be proposed as I lose nothing if evolution is shown to not be the best explination. You however have a dog in the fight and have sympathy for you due to what you are forced to accept or reject.

The outcome of any process (including natural selection) must be random if the inputs to it are random. This is elementary logic, yet as is often the case the evolution devotee disregards logic, they have their own brand of pseudo logic where they can make any claim they like and expect others to accept it as fact.

This is what happens when scientism dips its toe into philosophy, absurdities and contradictions run amok !

Your need to reject evolution is showing.

The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment.

A monkey typing random words will not produce a Bible.
A monkey typing random words when there is a selection process involved that keeps the correct words in their order while rejecting incorrect words and placement will produce a Bible. You reject seeing the selecting going on, but I get it, you're trying really hard to maintain a religious belief. I feel I understand the other side farily well in this regard.